Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$12.14
▼ $0.12 (-1.0%)
Market data updated: 09/20 01:21 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$1.70B
Day Range
$11.87 - $12.46
52-Week Range
$7.95 - $28.25
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$10.15
Resistance
$15.44
NTLA is a stock from the Healthcare sector — Pharmaceuticals, biotech, medical devices, and health insurance — less sensitive to economic cycles, but exposed to regulation and FDA approvals.
-24.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 7/26 factors positiveRisk: High
This score and all analysis on this page are for informational and educational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice. Read the full disclaimer
Weighted: Technical 25% · Fundamental 20% · Growth 15% · Valuation 15% · News 10% · Quality 10% · Risk 5%
Overall Score
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 27.4%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$76.46 vs. price $12.14 (-729.8%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (65/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 2 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 2
TIME ECHO identifies historical situations that resemble the current market state. Historical outcomes are not guarantees of future performance. Similarity does not imply causation, and results may change as new data becomes available.
🗓️ What Changed This Week
🌱 Building History
We don't have a real data point from a week ago for this stock yet. The weekly comparison will appear once enough history has accumulated.
📊 Score History
46
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
🐻 Bear Case
🔍 What Could Prove This Wrong
This isn't a price-direction forecast — just a synthesis of real, already-computed data, and future conditions that could change the picture.
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
65
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
36
Risk
40
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
30
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of Intellia Therapeutics has centered on its **hereditary angioedema (HAE) therapy, Lonvo-z**, which received **FDA acceptance and Priority Review** for its Biologics License Application, signaling potential regulatory progress. The company also secured a **$400 million non-dilutive loan** from OrbiMed, tied to Lonvo-z milestones, reinforcing investor focus on this program amid mixed long-term stock performance. Analysts and retail investors highlight its **genomics platform potential**, though shareholder returns remain historically negative.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Intellia Therapeutics, Inc.. News trend score: 98. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 1 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
18
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
49
Psychology
46
Fundamentals
30
Technical
36
Valuation
38
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
-23%
Market Narrative
58
Fundamental Reality
49
Narrative Gap
+9
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
NTLA’s psychology is fragmented but dominated by **FOMO** (14) and **Overconfidence** (8), reflecting traders chasing momentum despite modest fundamentals. The narrative gap (-10) hints at a disconnect between market enthusiasm and underlying reality. Key uncertainty: whether momentum-driven buying will sustain or fade as sentiment remains tepid (26/100). Overconfidence may persist if traders ignore EPS growth lagging price gains.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 06:57 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
""milestone-based tranches primarily linked to lonvoguran ziclumeran (lonvo-z) for hereditary angioedema""
""entered into a $400 million non-dilutive senior secured term loan facility with OrbiMed""
""how central that program has become to Intellia’s funding""
""a leading biopharmaceutical company focused on revolutionizing medicine leveraging CRISPR gene editing""
📈 11D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: High (confidence in the behavioral read, not a price prediction). Describes observable market behavior, not what any individual investor thinks, and is not a buy/sell signal.
🏛️ Investor DNA — Historical Investors
A Historical Strategy Simulation: assuming each investor follows their documented principles, how would they rate this stock today? This is not a prediction of what they would actually do.
🟢 Best match
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for NTLA reflects deep methodological contrasts: Bagehot and Mackay’s high scores (100 and 90) suggest a resilient balance sheet and lack of speculative frenzy, aligning with their focus on liquidity and crowd psychology. In contrast, Fisher (25) and Livermore (25) dismiss it outright—Fisher because it lacks his signature of quality/growth, while Livermore’s negative trend signal clashes with his trend-following discipline. Marks’ cycle-based approach (75) sees it as mid-cycle, but Loeb (39) and Schwager (34) flag excessive risk, mirroring their risk-averse and systematic stances. Meanwhile, Graham’s defensive (70) and enterprising (44) scores split on valuation thresholds, while Housel’s 0 underscores his volatility-driven patience—highlighting how even similar principles (like valuation) yield divergent conclusions when applied to market timing or risk tolerance.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 74
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 73
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 68
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 66
Looks early-to-mid cycle, not overextended
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 63
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 46
Mixed — a good business, but expectations may already be high
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 46
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 45
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 44
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 43
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 39
Risk profile Loeb would flag as a real threat to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 35
Mixed case — the evidence for picking this stock over an index is not strong
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 25
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 16
Negative trend — against Livermore's core rule of trading with the trend
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
The kind of volatility that tends to shake patient holders out
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 282 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 6 bearish · 2 neutral)
A market-structure read based purely on real price and volume data — not full classic Wyckoff schematic identification (Phase A-E), but a quantitative analysis of what can reliably be computed: trading ranges, "effort vs. result", volume within the range, and Spring/Upthrust detection.
The stock is in a clear downtrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
Medium confidence
The Wyckoff Method, developed by Richard Wyckoff in the early 20th century, reads the balance of supply and demand through price and volume, based on the premise that large investors ("smart money") quietly accumulate shares before rallies and quietly distribute them before declines. The read here is based solely on real price and volume data — full, precise identification of classic Wyckoff patterns (such as Phases A-E) requires human chart-reading experience and judgment, so this is an approximate algorithmic read, not a substitute for professional analysis. This should not be considered investment advice.
Gross Margin
—
Operating Margin
-651.7%
Net Margin
-609.9%
EBITDA Margin
-637.2%
ROE
-61.5%
ROA
-49.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$3.81
Cash
$155.46M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
5.08
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$12.14
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$76.46
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-729.8%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
15.4%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 15.4% | $-456.66M | $-418.95M |
| 2 | 12.1% | $-512.11M | $-431.03M |
| 3 | 8.9% | $-557.83M | $-430.75M |
| 4 | 5.7% | $-589.71M | $-417.76M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-604.45M | $-392.85M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-395.87M
Terminal Value
$-9.53B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-6.19B
Enterprise Value
$-8.29B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-8.29B
*The DCF model is an estimate based on assumptions — not a guaranteed forecast. You can change the assumptions to examine different scenarios.
Book Value per Share
$6.20
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$6.20
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 10 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Zacks · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Zacks · 8.9.2026
MT Newswires · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Stocktwits · 8.9.2026
MT Newswires · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
InvestorsHub · 8.9.2026
Intellia Therapeutics, Inc. (NTLA) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 46/100, rated "Moderate". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
NTLA currently scores 46/100 (Moderate) across the categories we measure. StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, NTLA's estimated fair value is -$76.46, which is 729.8% below the current price of $12.14. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
NTLA's technical score is 36/100, which currently reads as bearish — based on real price/volume signals (moving averages, RSI, MACD, and more), not a prediction of what happens next.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 27.4%; Net income growth: 20.5%; Current ratio: 5.08.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$76.46 vs. price $12.14 (-729.8%); Operating margin: -651.7% (negative); Net margin: -609.9% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for NTLA.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 10 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LEONARD JOHN M | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 1,147,064 | -2,785 | $13.00 |
| LEONARD JOHN M | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 2,785 | -2,785 | $13.00 |
| LEONARD JOHN M | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 1,149,849 | -19,890 | $12.60 |
| LEONARD JOHN M | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 19,890 | -19,890 | $12.60 |
| Dulac Edward J III | Open Market Sale | 22.7.2026 | 8,111 | -8,111 | $11.25 |
| Dulac Edward J III | Open Market Sale | 22.7.2026 | 148,175 | -8,111 | $11.25 |
| Dulac Edward J III | Open Market Sale | 2.7.2026 | 4,677 | -4,677 | $18.00 |
| Dulac Edward J III | Open Market Sale | 2.7.2026 | 156,286 | -4,677 | $18.00 |
| Dube Michael P | Open Market Sale | 1.7.2026 | 2,641 | -2,641 | $16.78 |
| Dube Michael P | Open Market Sale | 1.7.2026 | 66,886 | -2,641 | $16.78 |
| Cohen Fred E | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 13,300 | +13,300 | — |
| Keresty Georgia | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 9,200 | +9,200 | — |
| Bhanji Muna | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 9,200 | +9,200 | — |
| GOODMAN JESSE | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 9,200 | +9,200 | — |
| Goff Brian | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 13,300 | +13,300 | — |
| Goff Brian | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 9,200 | +9,200 | — |
| CHASE WILLIAM J | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 13,300 | +13,300 | — |
| Verwiel Frank | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 13,300 | +13,300 | — |
| GOODMAN JESSE | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 13,300 | +13,300 | — |
| Cohen Fred E | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 9,200 | +9,200 | — |
| Keresty Georgia | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 13,300 | +13,300 | — |
| Bhanji Muna | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 13,300 | +13,300 | — |
| Verwiel Frank | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 9,200 | +9,200 | — |
| CHASE WILLIAM J | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 9,200 | +9,200 | — |
| Cohen Fred E | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 216,653 | +9,200 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
43,928,014 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 44,010,769 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
49.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 54.3% the prior week
Based on daily short-sale volume (Reg SHO) — a different metric from the open short interest above: this is daily trading volume, not an open position, so it updates weekly rather than biweekly.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology